Kevin's Watch

Cozarkian wrote: I don't think it is impossible for the universe to have some inherent objective standard of morality despite the difficulty in grasping it.

I'm not prepared to say "impossible."...but I'd say the chances infinitesimal and shrinking all the time.
If it existed, I think we'd have seen some sign of it in math and sciences...even if only indirect.
I think it is something that emerges from/through the interaction of intelligence, instinct, and environment in the pursuit of survival. [so is adaptive and relative, not ideal and objective].

Cozarkian wrote:I don't think it is impossible for the universe to have some inherent objective standard of morality despite the difficulty in grasping it.

Perhaps it's not impossible. But just because it's possible, doesn't mean it happened. I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.

If there is an objective standard of morality, why don't we all share it?

--A

Vraith wrote:

Cozarkian wrote: I don't think it is impossible for the universe to have some inherent objective standard of morality despite the difficulty in grasping it.

I'm not prepared to say "impossible."...but I'd say the chances infinitesimal and shrinking all the time.
If it existed, I think we'd have seen some sign of it in math and sciences...even if only indirect.
I think it is something that emerges from/through the interaction of intelligence, instinct, and environment in the pursuit of survival. [so is adaptive and relative, not ideal and objective].

Interesting topic. I'm with Vraith here - conceptually, morality is a human construct, which has evolved alongside societies with a view to serving the ongoing existence of those societies. It therefore cannot be considered objective, but simply supported by consensus. It is indeed both relative and adaptive, since morality changes over time - well, acceptability certainly does and that's tantamount to the selfsame thing.

As to other objective truths, I'm sure they exist at least in the field of science, whether we've perceived them or not. There's an argument that has already been made here that we may be incapable of perceiving pure objective truth by the very way in which our consciousness works. We may well be helplessly subjective, for all our best efforts to the contrary.

Then again, as has also been mentioned, perhaps our attempts to detect and observe ultimate truths alter the nature of what we're trying to observe in the first place.

As to whether you can have a correct point of view or opinion - I'll attempt to deal with the difference in a second - in mundane terms, yes you can on those subjects that do have an objective external existence (presuming one accepts that such subjects do in fact exist outside of anyone's perceiving of them - and I do realise that this is an ask). It's just not proven, which is what makes it a point of view or opinion in the first place. The follow-up question this thread is now on to is "can it actually ever be proven"?

Strictly semantically, a "point of view" is more limited than an opinion. Example - I might wake up one morning to notice what seems to be a small white square with six little black dots on it suspended directly above my face. From my limited point of view at that moment, that's to me is a 2 dimensional thing. Needless to say, if I got up and took another look from a different angle, I might find out that some jokester had carefully suspended an obviously 3 dimensional die from my bedroom ceiling and my opinion on what I was looking at would change, having been informed by an extra point of view or two.

However, people use "point of view" (aka "from where I'm standing") and "opinion" (aka "what I think/believe") interchangeably, which may lead to confusion.

Cozarkian wrote: I don't think it is impossible for the universe to have some inherent objective standard of morality despite the difficulty in grasping it.

I agree. If there are different levels of consciousness that we can attain (each being 'higher' than the last), then the objectively moral way to live is by reaching for those 'higher' levels. The difficulty lies in the fact that to our rational minds even the next level 'up' from where we are cannot be captured in language, which is why mystical language is so, ah, mystical.

u.

Re points of view and my suspended die analogy, sometimes we are entirely slaves to our own subconscious and entirely subjective interpretations that may bear no relationship at all to actual reality - in such cases, multiple points of view make no difference whbatsoever.

As a well-know example, take the famous rotating hollow mask illusion. No matter how hard you try, you'll always see a protruding 3D face which "magically" changes rotational direction all of a sudden. Our brains are just programmed this way.

I'm sure the above also applies more often than not to our views on the conceptual as well as the physical.

TheFallen wrote:Re points of view and my suspended die analogy, sometimes we are entirely slaves to our own subconscious and entirely subjective interpretations that may bear no relationship at all to actual reality - in such cases, multiple points of view make no difference whbatsoever.

As a well-know example, take the famous rotating hollow mask illusion. No matter how hard you try, you'll always see a protruding 3D face which "magically" changes rotational direction all of a sudden. Our brains are just programmed this way.

I'm sure the above also applies more often than not to our views on the conceptual as well as the physical.

Heh...I love that thing, try so hard not to give in to it, but no dice.

OTOH: it also shows context and methods matter.
Cuz the problem doesn't exist with an actual, physical 3-d mask. You can make it happen, but you have to control the circumstances pretty tightly [background, distance, lighting, speed]. With practice, one can "choose" to see the illusion or see the actual at will.
[Heh...theater techs...they do funny stuff, given a chance. Like using a pickle for a light bulb.]

TheFallen wrote: As a well-know example, take the famous rotating hollow mask illusion. No matter how hard you try, you'll always see a protruding 3D face which "magically" changes rotational direction all of a sudden. Our brains are just programmed this way.

That thing is freaky. The first time it went around I still saw it as the inside of the mask but the eyes were slightly protuded like they had plastic sides sticking up (so it would be the effect of a food sitting in a bowl). But the second time, sure enough, the entire mask flipped and started to rotate the opposite direction so it looked like there was as a second mask rotating into the first mask as it came back around.

Yep. I tried again and I can't get rid of the second mask, whether I actively try or whether I relax my eyes and don't try.